On Wednesday, 13 November 2019 at 11:07:12 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
I'm trying to find the rationale why GC pointers (should be names managed pointers) are using the exact same type as any other pointer.
I assume you mean a GC that scans (not ref counting). GC pointers only need to be protected from being released, so regular "borrowing" pointers would be ok. That ought to be the most common pointer type in function signatures.
But then you would need a concept of "raw" pointers and "owning" pointers in addition.
Doesn't this confusion make GC pointers just as unsafe as raw pointers?
Only if it can be freed or if you can construct a pointer from integers so that pointers can be hidden when GC scans memory. Which is a reason for why high level GC languages treat pointers/references in an abstract way (no address information available).
Has there been any prior discussion about introducing managed pointers in D?
Yes, there has been several discussions in the forums over the years.
One argument against would be that people would not be able to use libraries that used a specific pointer type. That could be solved by using templated pointers or using borrowed-pointer-types in interfaces.
Another argument against has been that it would create a combinatorial explosion when people try to mix different pointer types. It might lead to more object code bloat, but should not be deal breaking.
